From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] ethdev: fix flow validate comments
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:01:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170411100137.GX3790@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170407002300.14433-1-johndale@cisco.com>
Hi John,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:23:00PM -0700, John Daley wrote:
> Change comments for rte_flow_validate() function to indicate that flow
> rule collision and resource validation is optional for PMD and therefore
> the return codes may have different meanings.
>
> Fixes: b1a4b4cbc0a8 ("ethdev: introduce generic flow API")
>
> Signed-off-by: John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
> ---
> v2: another crack at the comments
> v3: fix typos, rewording, put back a sentence omitted in v2
This version is fine and it clarifies the original intent, it's only missing
associated changes in doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst (look for
rte_flow_validate).
Also the commit title could start with "doc:" as there is no API change.
I also have one minor nit, see below.
> lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h | 16 +++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h
> index 8013ecab2..85ce4ec90 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_flow.h
> @@ -983,9 +983,11 @@ struct rte_flow_error {
> /**
> * Check whether a flow rule can be created on a given port.
> *
> - * While this function has no effect on the target device, the flow rule is
> - * validated against its current configuration state and the returned value
> - * should be considered valid by the caller for that state only.
> + * The flow rule is validated for correctness and whether it could be accepted
> + * by the device given sufficient resources. The rule is checked against the
> + * current device mode and queue configuration. The flow rule may also
> + * optionally be validated against existing flow rules and device resources.
> + * This function has no effect on the target device.
> *
> * The returned value is guaranteed to remain valid only as long as no
> * successful calls to rte_flow_create() or rte_flow_destroy() are made in
> @@ -1016,9 +1018,13 @@ struct rte_flow_error {
> * -ENOTSUP: valid but unsupported rule specification (e.g. partial
> * bit-masks are unsupported).
> *
> - * -EEXIST: collision with an existing rule.
> + * -EEXIST: collision with an existing rule. Only returned if device
> + * supports flow rule collision checking and there was a flow rule
> + * collision. Not receiving this return code is no guarantee that creating
> + * the rule will not fail due to a collision.
> *
> - * -ENOMEM: not enough resources.
> + * -ENOMEM: Not enough memory to execute the function, or if the device
"Not" should be lowercase (why, yes, that's all).
> + * supports resource validation, resource limitation on the device.
> *
> * -EBUSY: action cannot be performed due to busy device resources, may
> * succeed if the affected queues or even the entire port are in a stopped
> --
> 2.12.0
>
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-11 10:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-24 2:36 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics John Daley
2017-03-24 2:36 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] ethdev: don't consider device state when validating flows John Daley
2017-04-06 20:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-04-06 22:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/1] fix flow validate comments John Daley
2017-04-06 22:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] ethdev: " John Daley
2017-04-07 0:23 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " John Daley
2017-04-11 10:01 ` Adrien Mazarguil [this message]
2017-04-20 18:49 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] doc: " John Daley
2017-04-21 8:11 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-04-21 8:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-03-24 9:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/1] proposed minor change in rte_flow_validate semantics Adrien Mazarguil
2017-03-24 17:23 ` John Daley (johndale)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170411100137.GX3790@6wind.com \
--to=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=johndale@cisco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).